[NSP Report 37] The United States' Vision for the Alliance Order in the 21st Century: A Historical Perspective

Assistant Professor and Director of the Office of International Affairs at Catholic University. Professor Ma Sang-yoon earned his bachelor's and master's degrees in Diplomacy from Seoul National University and his Ph.D. in International Politics from the University of Oxford, UK, for his research on U.S. domestic political intervention surrounding the issue of democracy in South Korea during the 1960s. His primary research areas include U.S. foreign policy, ROK-U.S. relations, and the diplomatic history of the Cold War. He is currently researching the ROK-U.S. relationship during the Bush-Blair era to examine U.S. alliance relationships from a comparative perspective. His recent publications include "From ‘March North’ to Nation-building: Interplay of U.S. Policy and South Korean Politics during the Early 1960s," "ROK-U.S. Conflict during Détente: Nixon, Carter, and Park Chung-hee" (co-authored), "The English School's Theory of International Society," and "Alliance for Self-reliance: ROK-U.S. Security Relations, 1968-71."

In the U.S. presidential election held on November 4, 2008, Democratic candidate Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States. The 2008 U.S. election garnered unprecedented domestic and international attention due to several factors: the extremely low approval ratings of President Bush in recent years, a strong desire for change, and widespread interest in the possibility of the first African American president.

We cannot help but pay close attention to the foreign policy that the Obama administration, officially launched in January 2009, will pursue and how it will affect our lives on the Korean Peninsula. The fundamental purpose of this article is to analyze the scope of foreign policy options available to the new U.S. administration by examining the historical trajectory of U.S. foreign policy and alliance strategies. While it is clear that personal factors such as President Obama's background, beliefs, and leadership style will significantly influence U.S. foreign policy over the next four years, it is also essential to understand the foreign policy environment and conditions he will inherit, and how these conditions have historically been shaped and operated, in order to forecast future U.S. diplomacy, particularly its alliance policy.

This article will first examine the U.S. diplomatic tradition, followed by a historical review of U.S. alliance policy since the 20th century. Finally, based on this review, it will conclude by projecting future U.S. alliance policy in terms of continuity and change.

I. The U.S. Diplomatic Tradition

When discussing the U.S. diplomatic tradition, two pairs of concepts are often mentioned. The first is the pair of isolationism and internationalism. For a long time, it has been argued that a cyclical pattern of isolationism and internationalism has appeared throughout U.S. diplomatic history (e.g., Klingberg 1952). However, isolationism was fundamentally a product of the period when the United States remained a relatively weak nation and was geographically somewhat insulated from the Old World. As its national power grew, the U.S. strengthened its international position and role. Particularly since the 20th century, often called the "American Century," the trend toward internationalism has also strengthened alongside the expansion of America's international standing. At least since World War II, the internationalist orientation of U.S. foreign policy has been maintained as a near constant.

Within the scope of maintaining an internationalist orientation, fluctuations in the relative emphasis on U.S. foreign and domestic concerns have been observed. For example, following the end of the Cold War with the disappearance of the communist bloc represented by the Soviet Union, concerns were widely raised among U.S. foreign policy elites that American public opinion might revert to isolationism (Schlesinger 1995, 1996). In a similar vein, shortly after the Bush administration took office and prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, European leaders such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed concerns that the United States might focus narrowly on its national interests and neglect its international leadership role. Despite these concerns, empirical studies of U.S. foreign policy opinion indicate that public opinion generally tends to lean more towards internationalism than isolationism (Kull and Destler 1999). This is understood as a reflection of the reality that U.S. interests across various domains are already deeply intertwined with global stability. Nevertheless, even if not a strict dichotomy between internationalism and isolationism, it is possible to distinguish whether U.S. foreign policy adopts an active stance toward foreign intervention or a more passive stance toward international issues while concentrating on domestic matters.

Another conceptual pair regarding the U.S. diplomatic tradition is realism and idealism. Unlike other countries, U.S. foreign policy is characterized by a relatively strong adherence to pursuing American values and ideals. This characteristic is understood as a manifestation of American exceptionalism. The United States embodies freedom, democracy, and market capitalism as its core values and tends to view the world through the lens of these values. Furthermore, the U.S. has historically shown interest and exerted efforts to spread these values, directly and indirectly, as universal values throughout the world (Ikenberry 2000; Smith 1994).

However, the other side of the coin of American exceptionalism is American power. Since the 20th century to the present day, the United States has maintained an overwhelmingly dominant global position in terms of military strength, economic power, and knowledge and technology, which has served as the foundation for pursuing realist national interests. Simultaneously, this overwhelming power has enabled the U.S. to strive to create and maintain an international order that reflects its values.

In this sense, U.S. foreign policy should be understood as a combination of realism and idealism. As exemplified by the Nixon-Kissinger diplomacy in the early 1970s, realism devoid of the idealism centered on liberal values has not been well-received by Americans (Kissinger 1994, 742; Schlesinger 1999, 96). The issue in U.S. diplomatic tradition lies not in whether realism and idealism are combined, but in the proportion and manner in which they are combined.

This article identifies two main factors that determine whether U.S. foreign policy leans more towards internationalism or relative isolationism, and also determines the proportion of realism and idealism in its combination. First, it is the emergence and disappearance of external threats, or changes in the U.S. perception of them. Second, it is the relative rise and fall of U.S. power. Depending on the perception of external threats, the U.S. will adopt a more active or passive stance toward foreign intervention. However, such a stance is also inevitably influenced by the magnitude of U.S. power and available resources. The following will examine the historical development of U.S. alliance strategy since the 20th century, focusing on these two variables... (continued)